[LINK] 5G not safe?

David dlochrin at key.net.au
Wed Apr 3 20:09:27 AEDT 2019

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 17:59:16 AEDT Stephen Rapley wrote:

> While the health impacts of RF exposure are real a quick survey of the source of this story and the host site’s other offerings - David Icke and anti-vaxer sentiments - leaves you with the sense this site is trying to squeeze the health concerns about 5G and RF in general into a tinfoil hat that doesn’t do the issue justice.

Yes indeed.  Linkers may remember a discussion some years ago regarding a desk study by the epidemiologist  Dr. Bruce Hocking for Telstra which found a doubling of childhood leukemia in the suburbs around Gore Hill in Sydney.  This was to be phase-1 of a more detailed study, but I understand Telstra cancelled phase-2.

The opening paragraph of the website item - https://takebackyourpower.net/brussels-first-major-city-to-halt-5g-due-to-health-effects/ - states "Ms. Fremault accurately identified that a *5G pilot project is not compatible with Belgian radiation safety standards* (9 V/m, or 95 mW/m2 according to this online converter[1])".

But I believe the power density of an EM field of 'e' volts/metre in free space is given by (e^2)/(120*Pi) watts/sq.metre.  A field of 9 volts/metre is then 0.215 watts/sq.metre or 215 mW/sq.metre, not 95.  An ABC source once told me that the field on the roof of their administration building at Gore Hill was around 5 volts/metre, and I think that also used to be the Russian standard for maximum weekday exposure.

So I think the story is wrong somewhere (maybe me?)....

David L.

[1] https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/unitconversion.asp

More information about the Link mailing list